Intel is facing a challenging situation marked by both successes and significant setbacks. While their process technology has fallen behind competitors like TSMC, leading to market share losses and reliance on their own foundries, Intel is demonstrating strength in other areas. Their packaging technology remains competitive, they're seeing growth in their foundry business with government support and external clients, and their upcoming Meteor Lake processor shows promise. Ultimately, Intel's long-term success hinges on regaining process leadership, which will require substantial and sustained investment, as well as flawlessly executing their ambitious roadmap.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC), the world's largest contract chip maker, is expected to announce a massive $100 billion investment in advanced semiconductor manufacturing facilities in the United States over the next three years. This substantial commitment aims to boost domestic chip production and reduce U.S. reliance on foreign suppliers, particularly in light of escalating tensions with China and growing concerns about semiconductor supply chain security. The investment includes plans for multiple new factories, potentially creating thousands of jobs.
HN commenters are skeptical of TSMC's purported $100B investment, questioning whether it will fully materialize and expressing concern over the high cost of US chip fabrication. Several point out that TSMC's Arizona fabs are smaller and less advanced than their Taiwanese counterparts, suggesting the investment figure may include long-term operational costs rather than solely construction. Others discuss the geopolitical motivations behind the move, viewing it as a US strategy to secure its chip supply chain amidst rising tensions with China. Some highlight the challenges TSMC faces in the US, including higher labor and operating expenses, and potential difficulties attracting and retaining skilled talent. Finally, a few commenters raise concerns about the environmental impact of these large-scale fabs and the potential strain on local resources.
Broadcom and TSMC are reportedly exploring separate deals with Intel that could break up the struggling chip giant. Broadcom is considering acquiring Intel's networking business, while TSMC is in talks to potentially build a dedicated fabrication plant near Intel's Arizona site. These deals, if they materialize, would represent a significant shift for Intel, signaling a potential move away from its traditional integrated device manufacturing model and allowing it to focus on its core chip-designing business.
HN commenters are skeptical of the WSJ article's premise that Intel would split its manufacturing operations. Several point out that Intel's foundry business is integral to its IDM (Integrated Device Manufacturing) model and selling it off, especially to a competitor like TSMC, would be strategically unsound. Others argue that Intel's manufacturing capabilities, while currently lagging behind TSMC, are still a valuable asset, especially given the current geopolitical climate and the desire for more geographically diverse chip production. Some commenters suggest the rumors might be intentionally leaked by Intel to gauge public and investor reactions, or even to put pressure on governments for more subsidies. The overall sentiment is that a complete split is unlikely, but smaller deals, like selling specific fabs or collaborating on specific technologies, are more plausible.
TSMC is reportedly in talks with Intel to potentially manufacture chips for Intel's GPU division using TSMC's advanced 3nm process. This presents a dilemma for TSMC, as accepting Intel's business would mean allocating valuable 3nm capacity away from existing customers like Apple and Nvidia, potentially impacting their product roadmaps. Further complicating matters is the geopolitical pressure TSMC faces to reduce its reliance on China, with the US CHIPS Act incentivizing domestic production. While taking on Intel's business could strengthen TSMC's US presence and potentially secure government subsidies, it risks alienating key clients and diverting resources from crucial internal development. TSMC must carefully weigh the benefits of this collaboration against the potential disruption to its existing business and long-term strategic goals.
Hacker News commenters discuss the potential TSMC-Intel collaboration with skepticism. Several doubt Intel's ability to successfully utilize TSMC's advanced nodes, citing Intel's past manufacturing struggles and the potential complexity of integrating different process technologies. Others question the strategic logic for both companies, suggesting that such a partnership could create conflicts of interest and potentially compromise TSMC's competitive advantage. Some commenters also point out the geopolitical implications, noting the US government's desire to strengthen domestic chip production and reduce reliance on Taiwan. A few express concerns about the potential impact on TSMC's capacity and the availability of advanced nodes for other clients. Overall, the sentiment leans towards cautious pessimism about the rumored collaboration.
According to Morris Chang, founding chairman of TSMC, Apple CEO Tim Cook expressed skepticism about Intel's foundry ambitions, reportedly stating that Intel "didn't know how to be a foundry." This comment, made during a meeting where Chang was trying to convince Cook to let Intel manufacture Apple chips, highlights the perceived difference in expertise and experience between established foundry giant TSMC and Intel's relatively nascent efforts in the contract chip manufacturing business. Chang ultimately declined Intel's offer, citing their high prices and lack of a true commitment to being a foundry partner.
Hacker News commenters generally agree with the assessment that Intel struggles with the foundry business model. Several point out the inherent conflict of interest in competing with your own customers, a challenge Intel faces. Some highlight Intel's history of prioritizing its own products over foundry customers, leading to delays and capacity issues for those clients. Others suggest that Intel's internal culture and organizational structure aren't conducive to the customer-centric approach required for a successful foundry. A few express skepticism about the veracity of the quote attributed to Tim Cook, while others suggest it's simply a restatement of widely understood industry realities. Some also discuss the broader geopolitical implications of TSMC's dominance and the US government's efforts to bolster domestic chip manufacturing.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) has started producing 4-nanometer chips at its Arizona facility. US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo announced the milestone, stating the chips will be ready for customers in 2025. This marks a significant step for US chip production, bringing advanced semiconductor manufacturing capabilities to American soil. While the Arizona plant initially focused on 5-nanometer chips, this shift to 4-nanometer production signifies an upgrade to a more advanced and efficient process.
Hacker News commenters discuss the geopolitical implications of TSMC's Arizona fab, expressing skepticism about its competitiveness with Taiwanese facilities. Some doubt the US can replicate the supporting infrastructure and skilled workforce that TSMC enjoys in Taiwan, potentially leading to higher costs and lower yields. Others highlight the strategic importance of domestic chip production for the US, even if it's less efficient, to reduce reliance on Taiwan amidst rising tensions with China. Several commenters also question the long-term viability of the project given the rapid pace of semiconductor technology advancement, speculating that the Arizona fab may be obsolete by the time it reaches full production. Finally, some express concern about the environmental impact of chip manufacturing, particularly water usage in Arizona's arid climate.
Summary of Comments ( 0 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43944790
Hacker News commenters discuss Intel's complex situation, acknowledging their manufacturing improvements while remaining skeptical of their long-term competitiveness. Several point out that Intel's "wins" are often in areas competitors have abandoned, like low-end server CPUs, or are achieved through aggressive pricing that impacts profitability. Some praise Intel's renewed focus on manufacturing and the potential of their foundry business, but question their ability to compete with TSMC's technological lead, especially in leading-edge nodes. Others highlight the cultural shift at Intel, suggesting a move away from prioritizing stock buybacks towards reinvestment in R&D and manufacturing as a positive sign, but caution that true success remains to be seen. The overall sentiment is one of cautious optimism tempered by the significant challenges Intel faces in regaining its former dominance. Several users also express concern about the US government's heavy subsidies to Intel, viewing it as potentially distorting the market and not necessarily guaranteeing long-term success.
The Hacker News post "Intel: Winning and Losing" has generated a lively discussion with several compelling comments. Many commenters focus on Intel's historical strengths and weaknesses, as well as the challenges and opportunities it faces in the current technological landscape.
Several commenters discuss Intel's past dominance and the reasons for its recent struggles. One commenter points to Intel's "not invented here" syndrome and its resistance to adopting ARM architecture as key factors in its decline. Another commenter suggests that Intel's focus on maximizing margins through integrated GPUs, rather than delivering the best performance, contributed to its loss of market share. The difficulty in attracting top talent in Portland is also mentioned as a contributing factor to Intel's struggles with their GPU efforts.
Another thread of discussion revolves around the complexities of semiconductor manufacturing and the challenges involved in regaining lost ground. A commenter highlights the immense capital expenditures and long lead times required in chip fabrication, making it difficult for Intel to quickly catch up to competitors like TSMC. The inherent complexity of running leading-edge fabs is also emphasized, with a commenter pointing out the intricacies of process control and yield optimization.
The discussion also touches on the geopolitical aspects of chip manufacturing, with commenters mentioning the CHIPS Act and its potential impact on Intel's future. Some express skepticism about the effectiveness of government intervention in the semiconductor industry, while others see it as a necessary step to ensure domestic chip production.
Several commenters discuss Intel's potential for a comeback. Some point to Intel's renewed focus on its core strengths and its investments in new fabrication facilities as positive signs. Others remain skeptical, citing the intense competition and the rapid pace of technological advancement in the semiconductor industry. There's also discussion around Intel's potential in specific market segments, such as server CPUs, where its performance is still considered competitive.
The potential for Intel to become a major foundry player is also discussed. While some see this as a viable path forward for Intel, others express doubts about its ability to compete with established foundries like TSMC. The complexity of the foundry business model and the need to build trust with customers are highlighted as key challenges for Intel.
Finally, some commenters offer more personal anecdotes about their experiences with Intel products and their perceptions of the company's culture. These comments provide a more nuanced perspective on Intel's strengths and weaknesses, and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities it faces.